>> nothing stays still. things will change. the question for you is whether and how you will participate in the process of creative change. >> just a few past commencement speeches from the c-span video library. and watch more of this year's commencement speeches on saturday, may 27, monday, may 29, memorial day, and june 3, on c-span and c-span.org. c-span. where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. next, a discussion about sanctuary cities and president trump's immigration-related

executive orders, from law enforcement officials and advocates representing immigrants. held by the american bar association, this is two hours. all right. good morning, everyone. welcome to this timely program titled sanctuary cities, legitimate law enforcement policy or rogue action, co-sponsored by the section of civil rights and social justice and the commission on immigration of the american bar association. my name is karen grise, i'm special counsel in the washington, d.c. office of fried frank harris shriver and jacobson. i serve as special adviser to the commission on immigration. i'm delighted to be your

moderator this morning and delighted to be sharing the stage with this distinguished group of panelists. i've moderated a lot of programs for the aba before, but i've learned so much preparing for this one, because this is not a topic on which i work every day. so the materials that we've gotten and the preparation that i've been able to do with these folks has been really constructi instructive for me. i'm pleased to have the chance to offer this wide range of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to all of you this morning. in short, today's program will explore in depth the sanctuary city concept that has come into so much prominence since the recent executive orders on immigration priorities. as you'll hear later in the program, sanctuary is not a new concept in the law or in practice, but is really in the forefront of some of the discussions today. we'll be talking about the

definitions of sanctuary cities, the various ways that state and local jurisdictions can limit their cooperation with federal enforcement authorities, the consequences of those decisions for local jurisdictions, and their immigrant populations. the panelists will be talking about various local policies, detainers, litigation around detainer issues. and the very practical, real, daily questions of whether sanctuary city policies do or don't create safer, more prosperous communities. so with apologies to all of the panelists, i'm going to give only very brief introductions to each of them and direct your attention to the full biographies that are in your materials. i'm going to introduce the speakers in the order in which we intend to proceed this morning. first, to my immediate left, michelle wozlin, senior research policy analyst for the american

immigration council. and in her role there she focuses primarily on high skilled immigration and enforcement issues. to michelle's left, paramitha shaw, associate director of the national immigration project of the national lawyers guild. next, betsy cavendish, the general counsel to d.c. mayor muriel bowser. and then to betsy's immediate left, tom manger, the chief of police for the montgomery county police department and also, interestingly, the president of the major cities chiefs association. so we're looking for him to wear a couple of hats in this program too. to tom's left, chad mizel from the department of justice. chad is counsel to the deputy attorney general and will be bringing us the doj perspective. then to chad's left, tracy

short. tracy is the principal legal adviser for i.c.e., immigration and customs enforcement, within the department of homeland security. so he'll be our second government speaker this morning. and at the -- no pun intended -- far left, michael niefack, principal in the d.c. region of jackson lewis pc. michael himself is former general counsel of i.c.e. so i'm really looking forward to his opportunity to reflect coming from both the private practice side but also with the government i.c.e. enforcement experience to sort of round out our discussion. so -- we probably messed up the seating order, if not the introduction order. so our plan is to have brief presentations from each of the speakers, with michelle starting

us off with the history, background, and basically framing of the issue. then each of the panelists will speak. then we'll have sometime for a roundtable discussion that i'll facilitate so that people can, you know, speak among themselves, respond to some questions that we've prepared. and then we have a good amount of time set aside at the end for question and answer from the audience. i have a housekeeping matter, which is that we have only one mike for the q&a for the audience. so when it comes the time, if you do have a question, we would like you to indicate that you have a question, raise your hand or stand and wait for the mike to come to you. and then identify yourself and your company or organizational affiliation before you ask your question. reminders to everyone that the program is being broadcast and recorded, so everyone bear that in mind when you make your comments or ask your questions.

so i have just one thought to start us off on the panel. the people who helped organize this reminded me of a quote from justice kennedy in the arizona litigation, the arizona versus united states litigation from 2012. and it's not about sanctuary cities at all. but it's a very good device to help set the stage for us in the discussion we hope to have this morning. so high kick it off with this. in talking about the relationship between state policing and federal immigration enforcement, justice kennedy wrote, "the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, and rational civic discourse." so we begin this panel with that goal in mind, to facilitate a searching, thoughtful, and

rational civic discourse on the subject of where national immigration authority interacts with state policing. with that, i'm going to turn to michelle's opening presentation. >> great. thank you so much, karen. and thank you so much to the aba for inviting me to be part of this panel this morning. my job was to present an overview and the basics so we could get this conversation started. as you all know, over the past several decade, stays, counties, and cities have adopted a variety of different policies that restrict their cooperation with federal authorities to enforce immigration law. and elected officials and law enforcement officials in many localities, as we'll hear today, have determined that this is in their communities' best interests, to limit their role in deportation for a variety of reasons. you'll hear from the other panelists today, but generally they believe these policies allow them to determine best how they protect and serve their own

communities and allows them to decide how to spend their own resources. and they truly believe that these policies make their community safer. some people call these policies that limit or restrict cooperation sanctuary policies. we know the administration believes they are sanctuary policies and that they violate federal law, and they've threatened to withhold funding from the so-called sanctuary cities and have attempted to publicly shame them with published reports of their alleged failures to protect the community. but i strongly believe that sanctuary policy is a misnomer. contrary to what many believe, so-called sanctuary policies do not shelter unauthorized immigrants from detection. immigrants are deported from sanctuary jurisdictions every single day. they don't shield immigrants from prosecution for criminal activities. the police can enforce all criminal laws against immigrants who commit crimes. so starting there this morning,

i'm going to discuss first what policies are included under this umbrella of sanctuary policies, how so-called sanctuary cities do cooperate with the federal government, how they are in compliance with federal law, and then i'm going to go over the evidence that we have that these cities are actually safe and economically vibrant. first, what policies are considered under this umbrella of sanctuary policies? they take many forms. some examples include prohibit 287-g agreements. these are agreements through which i.c.e. deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. sanctuary policies can also be refusing to enter into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention. it could be restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status from individuals that they encounter or serve or arrest. sanctuary policies can be refusing to allow i.c.e. into

their local jails without a warrant. it can mean restricting immigration enforcement in sensitive locations like hospitals and schools. and a sanctuary policy can also be restricting local police responses, restricting them from honoring all immigration deta n detainers. we'll talk a lot more about detainers, but i need to give a little background here. for our purposes, an immigration detainer is a tool used by the department of homeland security and i.c.e. specifically when they identify deportable people who are held in jails or prisons. a detainer is a request by i.c.e. asking law enforcement officials to hold that individual for a period of up to 48 hours longer than they would have usually held that person. so after bail has been posted, after the charges have been dropped, or after the person has served out their sentence, to hold that person an additional

amount of time so that i.c.e. can assume custody. these daetainers are not judicil warrants and compliance with the detainers is voluntary. i said cities with sanctuary policies do cooperate with the federal government on immigration. and they do this in a variety of ways. even in any sanctuary jurisdiction, officials send federal immigration agents the fingerprints of any person, including immigrants, that is booked into a jail or prison. and the federal government uses those fingerprints and that information to identify noncitizens for deportation. and this is what we know as the secure community program, sharing fingerprints. this is a mandatory program for all jurisdictions across the country. sanctuary cities can cooperate in joint task forces and other joint operations with i.c.e. and des, to target gangs or

trafficking rings or a number of other crimes. sanctuary cities may rent jail space to the federal government to house immigrant detainees. and even in sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions may honor detainers from the federal government in certain circumstances. in many cases, these jurisdictions will honor detainers if the individual has been convicted of a crime rather than just charged with a crime, or they will honor the didn'ter if the individual has been charged with or convicted of a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. so one thing we have heard often recently is that the sanctuary cities are not in compliance with federal law. again, we'll hear more about this from the other expert lawyers on the panel. but specifically, some people do claim that the sanctuary policies violate 8 usc section 1373. and this is a federal statute that prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws

or policies that limit communication about information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of individuals. so pursuant to section 1373, states and localities may not prohibit or restrict sending or receiving or requesting information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual from federal immigration authorities. they may not prohibit or restrict maintaining information regarding an individual's immigration status. they may not prohibit or restrict exchanging information regarding an individual's immigration status. but by its plain language, section 1373 only applies to sharing of information regarding an individual's citizenship and immigration status. so policies that do not explicitly limit communication with dhs about an individual's citizenship or immigration

status and do not forbid the maintenance of such information are not violations. moreover, section 1373 does not mandate that jurisdictions comply with immigration detainers. it does not prohibit policies or laws that restrict compliance with didn'ters. and it does not require state or local enforcement to collect information on immigration status. and it doesn't prevent jurisdictions from limiting the collection of that information. so many would argue that these policies that i've described are not in violation of federal law. finally, what i want to talk about is that we've heard concerns that these jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with i.c.e. are basically allowing criminals to run free. they're failing to deal with threats to public safety and national security. however there is certainly evidence that the opposite is true. of course there is plenty of evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native born americans. and many cities with large

immigrant communities are among the safest communities in the country. now, police officials will tell you and probably will tell you that it's easier for them to serve and protect their communities when there's trust between the police and the communities. and when all residents are willing to cooperate and report crimes. and this is especially important right now. there's a lot of fear in communities. and even in sanctuary jurisdictions, immigrants are fearful. there have been reports coming out this week showing that in los angeles, denver, el paso and other cities, the reporting of crimes, including domestic abuse and sexual assault, is down in these cities with large immigrant populations. it's down since the beginning of the year. so if immigrants are not going to commit crimes -- i'm sorry. if immigrants will not report crimes that they witness or that they're victims of, then the perpetrators may not be arrested. and everyone in the community is less safe. so if my house is being robbed or if my house is on fire and

the only witness is an unauthorized immigrant, i sure as heck want that person to call the fire department or call the police to report that to protect my house, regardless of their immigration status. just on wednesday, the attorneys general of new york, california, rhode island, washington, oregon, and the district of columbia released an excellent new report. it's called "setting the record straight on local involvement in federal and civil immigration enforcement." i recommend it to all of you, it makes many of the same points i made today. and from a law enforcement perspective, it tells many examples of immigrants who have come forward and been very helpful in the arrest of criminals. and it also really explains in detail why these sanctuary policies are good for the states that they represent. and then another study i want to point to is a recent study, 2017

report by professor tom long of the university of california, san diego. they found in sanctuary counties, they have lower crime rates and higher economic indicators than non-sanctuary counties. they looked at counties that have sanctuary policies and those that do not. they found that on average there are 35 1/2 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to non-sanctuary counties. they found that median household income is $4,000 higher in sanctuary counties than in non-sanctuary counties. for those who fear this is driven by income gains by latinos than in whites, they found the income is higher in sanctuary counties than in non-sanctuary counties. they found poverty is lower in

sanctuary counties. labor force participation including white labor force participation is higher in sanctuary counties. finally, unemployment is lower in sanctuary counties. the employment rate was 1.1% lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. i'm looking forward to my fellow panelists going into much more detail about these issues i raised. i hope i have been able to lay the groundwork for a constructive conversation. and i look forward to your questions and your comments. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, michelle. and you stole my next line, paramitha, i was going to ask, can you take us deeper now into the world of detainers, constitutional issues around detainers and what some of the litigation challenges have been and sort of what's the landscape at least on the existing detainer litigation. >> so thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here

today. i also wanted to open this with, you know, agreeing with michelle that sanctuary policies really are an exercise of basic state and local powers to regulate for the health and local powers to regulate for the basic health and safety and welfare of their residents. some people think people have done this to stop mass deportations. really, that's rarely the only motivations. they recognize they are vital to providing police-community relations and making sure that people feel safe reporting crimes and accessing basic government services and more recently, public schools and universities voiced concern that more aggressive immigration enforcement will jeopardize student safety and interfere with their school's educational missions.

i know the question always is whether they are lawful. there is answer which i'll get into and there is a shored one. and the answer is yes, they are lawful. i have been practicing law since 1998 and i have been involved with what's in called sanctuary policies for over ten years. and i think during the first years i have seen the birth of the homeland security agency, and during those first years dhs and doj attempted in many different ways to merge the function of state and police and local police with federal immigration enforcement through programs like secure communities which michele went into. and they did rely on this federal mechanism called immigration detainers. at that that time in 2006, 2007, you know, detainers have been here for decades when secure companies was launched, nobody really knew what they were. about 20,000 were issued. after secure communities began, hundreds of thousands of detainers started pouring out of the department of homeland

security. and the landscape of immigration enforcement changed radically. and that impacted communities across the country. we all saw how people somehow managed to get a detainer and somehow stay detained even after they may have been granted bail, after the charges were dismissed or charges were dropped. and we began hearing of extended detentions through the immigration detainer. and many people around the country, most people, actually, there was so much confusion, they believed they were compulsory. and this mechanism actually was instrumental to beginning what we think is some of the kinds of the largest mass deportation policies we have thish in our federal government for many years. as michele said, the detainer is a request. it looks like this. it is a form. right? and it's usually a form that i.c.e. has that says it's going to intend to assume custody of an individual for the purposes of putting them into removal

proceedings. a jurisdiction that complies with an i.c.e. detainer is engaging in a warrantless arrest. dhs has already conceded to that. and who is the jailer at that time, it is the local jurisdiction. the local jurisdiction has the body. they are the jailer. that's what we will see later on. they will bear the brunt of liability when people are sued let's say, for overdetention. so what are the problems with detainers? like i said before, i think there was a lot of confusion. everyone thought they were regular warrants of arrest, that they were criminal warrants, meaning that people just thought they were outstanding warrants everywhere and that non-citizens could be picked up for just outstanding warrants. people assumed that the detainer meant, concluded that somebody was here unlawfully. i'm going to tell you why that was also wrong. and there were many errors because we found out you know that detainers were lodged on u.s. citizens, on legal